Does Arkansas FOIA require release of police body-camera footage and misconduct records, and what about the bystanders shown in the videos?

Plain-English summary

A municipal records custodian asked AG Leslie Rutledge whether releasing certain documents about a police officer's suspension was consistent with the Arkansas FOIA. The records included internal investigation documents and (per the AG's footnote 20) body-camera footage that captured incidents unrelated to the underlying complaint. The records featured detail about third parties, including an unrelated arrestee's date of birth, personal information about a family in a custody dispute, and the name and guardianship details of a minor child.

The AG's response was a useful "mostly yes, with caveats."

On classification and the four-prong test. The records were properly classified as employee-evaluation records under Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387, because they were created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the officer and detailed the officer's performance. The four-prong release test under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(1) was satisfied. The first three prongs (suspension or termination, final administrative resolution, basis for the decision) were clear. The compelling-public-interest prong was met because the officer's misconduct violated departmental rules "aimed at conduct which could undermine the public trust and/or compromise public safety" (Ops. Att'y Gen. 2014-088, 2008-090) and because "an enhanced interest in disclosure exists in instances of law enforcement misconduct in interactions with the public" (Op. Att'y Gen. 2007-206).

On redactions. This is where the AG flagged caution. Body-camera footage in particular tends to capture people who have nothing to do with the underlying complaint. The records here included:

• The birth date of an individual arrested by the officer in an unrelated incident (likely subject to standard birth-date redaction).
• Personal information about a family involved in a custody dispute, captured in an audit of the officer's body camera (potentially constitutionally protectable).
• The name of a minor child and information regarding the guardianship of that child (definitely warrants McCambridge constitutional-privacy consideration).

The AG noted that "[a] definitive opinion regarding the release of this information is outside the scope of my review under section 25-19-105(c)(3)." But she pointed the custodian at McCambridge v. City of Little Rock, 298 Ark. 219, 766 S.W.2d 909 (1989), which held that a constitutional right of privacy can supersede the specific disclosure requirements of FOIA, at least with regard to constitutionally protectable information. Minors and family information caught up in unrelated bystander video are exactly the kind of constitutionally protectable subjects McCambridge contemplates.

Practical takeaway. Police body-camera and internal-affairs records about officer misconduct are generally releasable under FOIA when the four-prong test is met, but custodians cannot just hand over the raw files. They must scrub the third-party content (especially involving minors, custody disputes, and people unrelated to the underlying complaint) before release. The AG's "mostly consistent with FOIA" formulation is a clear signal that the custodian had the right answer on the substantive question but needed to do more redaction work.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2020. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Why is law-enforcement misconduct treated as a compelling public interest?
Because of the unique role police play. They have authority to use force, they interact directly with the public, and they are subject to departmental rules designed to maintain public trust. The AG cited Ops. Att'y Gen. 2014-088, 2008-090, and 2007-206 for the proposition that misconduct in those interactions creates an enhanced public interest in disclosure beyond what would exist for ordinary public employees.

What does McCambridge constitutional privacy add?
A separate, judge-made privacy bar that operates outside the statutory exemptions. McCambridge held that when records contain "constitutionally protectable information" (often involving minors, certain medical or sexual information, or constitutionally sensitive family circumstances), even otherwise disclosable records may need to be withheld or redacted. Body-camera content capturing bystanders in their homes, families in custody disputes, or identifiable minors are typical McCambridge concerns.

What about the unrelated arrestee's birth date?
That is governed by the standard birth-date redaction rule (Op. Att'y Gen. 2007-064, applying generally to public-employee dates of birth, with arrestee birth dates similarly often redacted in police records). The custodian should redact it under standard practice before release.

Should the body-camera audit be released at all?
The AG did not address whether the underlying body-camera footage was responsive to the FOIA request or merely something the custodian intended to release. If it was responsive and relates to the misconduct that grounds the suspension, the four-prong test brings it within the release framework, subject to the third-party redactions.

What if the misconduct was minor?
The AG noted that compelling public interest "is always a question of fact that must be determined in light of all the surrounding circumstances" (Op. Att'y Gen. 2006-026). Misconduct that does not implicate public trust or safety might fail the compelling-interest prong. The records here apparently reflected "a degree of misconduct sufficient to generate a compelling public interest in disclosure," but lower-level infractions could fall the other way.

What is the practical workflow for a custodian handling these records?
Classify each record (personnel or evaluation). Apply the right test (Young balancing or four-prong). Apply the standard redactions (DOB, contact info, SSN, undercover-officer details, etc.). Then look for third-party content captured in body-camera footage or investigation files and apply McCambridge constitutional-privacy redactions where applicable. Then release.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion applies the standard Arkansas FOIA two-track framework: Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) for personnel records (Young v. Rice balancing) and § 25-19-105(c)(1) for evaluation records (four-prong release test under Thomas v. Hall).

The compelling-public-interest analysis for police misconduct is supplemented by AG-opinion-developed factors specific to law enforcement: violation of departmental rules implicating public trust or safety, enhanced interest in officer-public interactions, and the officer's status (rank-and-file vs. high-ranking).

McCambridge v. City of Little Rock, 298 Ark. 219, 766 S.W.2d 909 (1989), creates the constitutional-privacy backstop for records that contain constitutionally protectable information about identifiable individuals. The McCambridge analysis sits alongside the statutory FOIA framework, not within it; it can require redaction or withholding even when the statute would otherwise allow release.

Citations

Statutes:

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (Supp. 2019) (definition of public records)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(10) (undercover-officer information)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records exemption)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal contact information)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (evaluation records release test)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2019) (AG opinion review)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3) (limit of AG review scope)

Cases:

• Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)
• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
• Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998)
• Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387
• McCambridge v. City of Little Rock, 298 Ark. 219, 766 S.W.2d 909 (1989)

Prior opinions referenced:

• Ops. Att'y Gen. 2014-088, 2008-090 (departmental misconduct as compelling public interest)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2007-206 (enhanced disclosure interest in officer-public interactions)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2006-026 (compelling-public-interest as fact question)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2020-028
June 17, 2020
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE

RESPONSE

Yes, the custodian's decision to release the records is consistent with the FOIA for the most part. I have identified a few pieces of information that may need to be redacted, as well as several redactions that may not be consistent with the FOIA.

I believe the records at hand reflect a degree of misconduct sufficient to generate a compelling public interest in disclosure.

Because it appears that the conditions under section 25-19-105(c)(1) for release of these employee-evaluation records have been met, I believe that your decision to release the records is for the most part consistent with the FOIA.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General

[Footnote 20: Some additional redactions may be necessary. The requested documents reveal the personal information of multiple individuals, i.e., the birth date of an individual arrested by the officer in an incident unrelated to the request; the personal information of a family involved in a custody dispute, which was revealed in an audit of the officer's body camera; and the name of a minor child and information regarding the guardianship of that child. A definitive opinion regarding the release of this information is outside the scope of my review under section 25-19-105(c)(3). I will simply note that the constitutional right of privacy can supersede the specific disclosure requirements of the FOIA, at least with regard to constitutionally-protectable information. See McCambridge v. City of Little Rock, 298 Ark. 219, 766 S.W.2d 909 (1989).]